View
2
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Revisiting Stream Restoration EPR:
An Update for the USWG
Tom Schueler and David Wood
Chesapeake Stormwater Network
April 23, 2019
SHWG Meeting
Revisiting Stream Restoration: 2018/2019
The USWG formed four groups to revisit the stream restoration EPR
• Group 1: Verifying Stream Restoration Practices
• Group 2: Crediting Outfall Stabilization Practices
• Group 3: Establishing Standards for Applying Protocol 1 (Prevented Sediment)
• Group 4: Adjusting Protocol 2/3 to Capture Floodplain/Stream Reconnection
65 outstanding stream experts(and a few divas)
Table 4. Roster for Group 4 (Adjusting Protocols for Floodplain Reconnection)
Name Affiliation E-mail AddressJoe Berg Biohabitats jberg@biohabitats.comDrew Altland RKK daltland@rkk.orgBill Stack CWP bps@cwp.orgScott Lowe McCormick Taylor sblowe@mcormicktaylor.com
John Hottenstein Ecosystem Planning and Restoration Jhottenstein@eprusa.net
Jeremy Hanson Virginia Tech jchanson@vt.eduSujay Kaushal University of Maryland Skaushal@umd.eduJoel Moore Towson University moore@towson.eduJens Geratz Anne Arundel County DPW pwgera00@aacounty.orgSean Crawford Bayland Consultants scrawford@baylandinc.comJosh Burch DOEE Josh.burch@dc.govJeff Hartranft PADEP BWEW jhartranft@pa.govDenise Clearwater MDE Wetlands and Waterways denise.clearwater@maryland.gov
Paul Mayer EPA Region ORD mayer.paul@epa.govDurelle Scott Virginia Tech dscott@vt.eduGreg Noe USGS gnoe@usgs.govChris Becraft Underwood and Assoc chris@ecosystemrestoration.com
Group 3
Name Affiliation E-mail Address
Drew Altland RKK daltland@rkk.comLisa Fraley-McNeal Center for Watershed Protection lfm@cwp.org
Joe Berg Biohabitats jberg@biohabitats.comRich Starr Ecosystem Planning and Restoration rstarr@eprusa.net
Josh Running Stantec Josh.running@stantec.comMatt Meyers Fairfax County, VA DPWES Matthew.meyers@fairfax.county.gov
Jim Morris JMT jmorris@jmt.comBill Brown PADEP Will.brown@pa.govJeff White MDE Jeff.white@maryland.govJosh Burch DOEE Josh.burch@dc.govReid Cook RES consultants rcook@res.usRalph Spagnolo EPA Region 3 spagnolo.ralph@epa.govTess Thompson Virginia Tech thwynn@vt.eduJoseph Sweeney Water Science Institute joe@waterscienceinstitute.org
Group 2. Outfall Stabilization Crediting Group
Name Affiliation E-mail Address
Ray Bahr (S. Comstock) MDE Rbahr@mde.state.md.us
Stephen Reiling DOEE Stephen.reiling@dc.govTracey Harmon VDOT tracey.harmon@vdot.virginia.gov
Brock Reggi VADEQ Brock.reggi@deq.virginia.gov
Karen Coffman MD SHA KCoffman@sha.state.md.us
Ryan Cole MD SHA (alternate) rcole@sha.state.md.us
Elizabeth Ottinger US EPA Region 3 Ottinger.elizabeth@epa.gov
Carrie Traver US EPA Region 3 Traver.carrie@epa.gov
Alison Santoro MD DNR Alisona.santoro@md.gov
Ted Brown Biohabitats Tbrown@biohabitats.com
Chris Stone Loudoun County, VA Chris.Stone@loudoun.gov
Erik Michelsen Anne Arundel County pwmich20@aacounty.org
Neil Weinstein LID Center nweinstein@lidcenter.org
Nick Noss (James Kaiser)
PA Turnpike Commission Nnoss@paturnpike.com
Group 1 (Verification)
Name Affiliation E-mail
Rich Starr Ecosystem Planning and Restoration rstarr@eprusa.net
Kathy Hoverman KCI Kathy.hoverman@kci.com
Tim Schueler Hazen and Sawyer tschueler@hazenandsawyer.com
Kip Mumaw Ecosystem Services kip@ecosystemservices.us
Neely Law Center for Watershed Protection nll@cwp.org
Meghan Fellows Fairfax County, DPWES meghan.noefellows@fairfaxcounty.gov
Sandra Davis US Fish and Wildlife Service Sandra_davis@fws.gov
Jennifer Rauhofer Stormwater Management Consulting jr@mdswm.com
Josh Burch DOEE Josh.burch@dc.gov
Scott Cox PADEP sccox@pa.gov
Group 1: Verifying Stream Restoration Projects
Focus: Develop a system to cost-effectively verify individual projects every five year
Status: Final Draft Out for Review
Product: Memo on methods, with visual indicators
Visual Indicators to Inspect for Stream Projects
Defining Loss of Pollutant Reduction Function for Protocol 1
Criteria for Loss Key Visual Indicators
Evidence of bank or bed
instability such that the
project delivers more
sediment downstream
than designed,
• Severe bank undercutting (bare earth
exposed)
• Incising bed (bed erosion evident)
• Flanking or downstream scour of
channel structures
• Failure or collapse of bank armoring
practices
Status % Failing *
Functioning 0 to 10% of reach
Showing Major
Compromise20 to 40% of reach
Project Failure 50% or more of reach
Group 2: Crediting Outfall Restoration Projects
Focus: Decide whether to establish a new crediting protocol for this class of projects
Status: Final issue resolution
Product: New Protocol “5” along with supporting technical memo
Eroding Outfalls as an Urban Sediment Delivery Hotspot
Outfall Restoration Practices
Stone step pools below outfall: courtesy Anne Arundel County DPW
Group 3:Revisiting the Prevented Sediment Protocol
Focus: Agreement on best practices for applying the protocol in the field and office, and setting limits on the degree of armoring allowed
Status: Expect to finish up in June or July
Product: Technical memo with revised protocol and incentives for better on-site data collection
Bulk Density (lbs/ft3)Expert Panel Report Case Study Example(Schueler and Stack 2014)
125
Carroll County Average of 5 sites and 39 samples
56
James Madison University Arboretum, Virginia(Mumaw 2015)
80
Paxton Creek, PA range of 9 samples 67 - 76Case Study Projects in North Carolina(Doll et al. 2018)
52 - 88
Three Armoring Categories
Non-Creditable
Armoring
Creditable
w/ Limits
Creditable
Armoring • Concrete retaining walls
• Gabions
• Dumped rip-rap
• Sheet piling/planking
• Block walls
• Geogrid/concrete/gabion
mattresses
• Non-biodegradable soil
stabilization
mats/systems
• Angular riprap stone
installed for bank
protection
• Imbricated rip rap
• Berm/pool cascades
• Boulder revetments
• Rocks used for localized
toe protection
• Root-wad revetments?
• Any soft-armoring
bioengineering practices
such as live stakes, coir
logs etc.
• Riffle weir series
Group 4: Floodplain Reconnection and Hyporheic Exchange (Protocol 2 and 3)
Focus: updating the protocols to reflect new research and design approaches for this class of projects
Status: Still in research phase, expected to run to Fall, 2019
Product: Technical memo and possibly revised protocols 2 and 3
Sediment and nutrient dynamics in the floodplain
Courtesy of Greg Noe, USGS
Streambank erosion and floodplain deposition dominate the watershed sediment budget, especially in urban areas
Photo Credit: G. Noe, USGS
High erosion rates Long term storage
CBP STREAM FEEDBACK LOOP
Photo Credit: Severn Riverkeeper
17
• Extensive state and EPA involvement in all four groups
• Expect extensive additional review and comment at USWG phase
• Goal is to compile an updated guidance document for crediting stream restoration projects by end of 2019
Next Steps
Verification Memo• Comment Period Until May 31• Seek USWG Approval at June 18 Meeting
Outfall Memo• Subgroup meeting to develop compromise
language• Comment Period will open following group
consensus• Seek USWG Approval June 18 or following meeting
Recommended